Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was poking around on the internet and I came across this very interesting site.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/Mortarsandguns/Mortars%20&%20Infantry%20Guns.htm

The medium (80 mm calibre) mortar was the first step in the long chain of fire support available to the infantry, which culminated in the massive artillery pieces held under Corps and Army Group control. It was also one of the most effective. Firstly, it was integral to the Infantry Battalion, and was not subject to providing other support missions. Secondly, the steep angle of fire meant a steep angle of descent. Simply put, the bomb falls very close to the vertical. This has a profound effect on the blast radius of the bomb on detonation. Shells fired from artillery pieces had a tendency to 'dig in' on landing, directing a good portion of their explosion into solid ground. Mortar bombs fell almost on their nose, meaning the bulk of their destructive power was radiated outwards. Thirdly, the rate of fire they could achieve was astonishing. An average crew could put a dozen bombs in the air inside of a minute. Multiply that by six crews in a typical Battalion, and you have over seventy rounds of ammunition impacting on the same target area in sixty seconds. The effect is too awful to contemplate on men caught in open ground. Against a machine gun just lying flat provided some defence, but against mortar bombs the only chance was to dig in, deep. Even then, that high angle could deliver a round right into a dugout. A well drilled crew could fire around 30 bombs in a minute, though due to the barrel overheating this rate of fire could not be sustained for long.

Here again the mortar had an advantage. It could be broken down into its three parts and spirited away by Jeep, cart, horse or man in seconds. Depending on the range, as the first bomb in a series landed, the last one may just have been fired. That meant the crew could have disassembled their weapon shortly after the last round hit and be gone. Not a feat that could be achieved with traditional towed artillery.

And that got me to thinking about the super suck-tastic mortars of the Imperial Guard. I love the concept of mortars and I think they are awesome but the rules for them are underwhelming at best.

Why not make mortars an assault profile, letting them shoot and move, or giving them Heavy 2, Blast to show how fast they can fire?

Anyone think this would make them over powered? I would be more tempted to use them if they were either quicker and could get out of danger, or could pour on the fire power.

Trying to take real world examples and apply them to the rules of 40k are generally a bad idea.

Regardless, having Heavy 2 doesn't seem game breaking to me. But not move and fire.

That being said, I bet armies of low armor value armies like Dark Eldar and Tyranid swarms already find mortar teams really unpleasant.

In real life mortars are one of the most un-maneuverable weapons going. They have to be dug-in to be fired accurately which can take a long time. They do have a higher rate of fire than artillery though (up to 20 rounds a minute for short periods of time). Therefore I don't think they should be assault weapons. I do think they should be more powerful though. Maybe S5 or S6 and able to fire at heavy 2 every 2 turns and heavy 1 all other turns and make them AP4. I think that would make them more true to life, for an appropriate points rise of course.

 edbradders wrote:
In real life mortars are one of the most un-maneuverable weapons going. They have to be dug-in to be fired accurately which can take a long time. They do have a higher rate of fire than artillery though (up to 20 rounds a minute for short periods of time). Therefore I don't think they should be assault weapons. I do think they should be more powerful though. Maybe S5 or S6 and able to fire at heavy 2 every 2 turns and heavy 1 all other turns and make them AP4. I think that would make them more true to life, for an appropriate points rise of course.

I agree. Mortars should be on par with Lobbas. But even if they were strength 5, I still wouldn't take them.

Why? Because they can't deal with tanks. Maybe mortars should have a choice of rounds to buy.

Fragmentation...............free (S5, AP5)
Smoke.............................free( 4+ cover save)
Illumination.....................free ( negates night fight)

Rare choices (only get to pick one)
Virus rounds...................15 points (wound on a 2+)
Augur rounds.................20 points (S6, Ap4; on a successful penetration or glance, the hit facing of the vehicle has its armor value reduced by 1.)

That would make mortars tempting, since they would be versatile. These rules make them better, so they should cost more.

Giving mortars AT rounds seem pretty out-there. Hitting something as small as a tank is next to impossible with a high trajectory round like a mortar, especially with a non-explosive round.
I really like the idea of alternate rounds though, making them more of a support weapon that compliments other units.

For AT purposes, maybe something like an incendiary round (s4, ap5, ignores cover) that glances vehicles or inflicts crew shaken on 4+?.

Smoke giving the unit hit a 4+ cover save, but also subjecting it to night-fighting would make it a good duel purpose round (give cover to yourself as you move up, or blind your enemy when they need to shoot)

 McGibs wrote:
Giving mortars AT rounds seem pretty out-there. Hitting something as small as a tank is next to impossible with a high trajectory round like a mortar, especially with a non-explosive round.
I really like the idea of alternate rounds though, making them more of a support weapon that compliments other units.

For AT purposes, maybe something like an incendiary round (s4, ap5, ignores cover) that glances vehicles or inflicts crew shaken on 4+?.

Smoke giving the unit hit a 4+ cover save, but also subjecting it to night-fighting would make it a good duel purpose round (give cover to yourself as you move up, or blind your enemy when they need to shoot)

Anti-tank mortar rounds already exist.
So not all that out there...

Anti tank mortar rounds do exist, but I've never heard of HESH mortar rounds (which is what augur rounds are)

Upping their strength might be the way to go, I like the idea of having mortars but can't realistically find a place for them in my lists

The big question is, when dealing with weapons like this: if the game wasn't filled up with extreme amounts of power armour, would it be more balanced? In the end you'll run into a brick wall, are the guys in light armour worth killing and how much should it cost killing them and conversely if weapons like Mortars are balanced around shooting on 3+ would proliferation of Mortars not devalue the light armour guys?

I've not got an opinion on the matter myself, I don't even know the Mortar's stats, but I do know it's not meant to be balanced for use against Marines.

 marv335 wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
Giving mortars AT rounds seem pretty out-there. Hitting something as small as a tank is next to impossible with a high trajectory round like a mortar, especially with a non-explosive round.
I really like the idea of alternate rounds though, making them more of a support weapon that compliments other units.

For AT purposes, maybe something like an incendiary round (s4, ap5, ignores cover) that glances vehicles or inflicts crew shaken on 4+?.

Smoke giving the unit hit a 4+ cover save, but also subjecting it to night-fighting would make it a good duel purpose round (give cover to yourself as you move up, or blind your enemy when they need to shoot)

Anti-tank mortar rounds already exist.
So not all that out there...

Just adding to this, but look up the PIAT for inspiration on anti-tank granades. British, very hard to aim, but excessively effective when it hits.

Problem with conversion into 40K is that the top armour of real tanks aren't anywhere near as good as the side armour, which is what hitting the roof gives you in 40K.

 edbradders wrote:
In real life mortars are one of the most un-maneuverable weapons going. They have to be dug-in to be fired accurately which can take a long time. They do have a higher rate of fire than artillery though (up to 20 rounds a minute for short periods of time). Therefore I don't think they should be assault weapons. I do think they should be more powerful though. Maybe S5 or S6 and able to fire at heavy 2 every 2 turns and heavy 1 all other turns and make them AP4. I think that would make them more true to life, for an appropriate points rise of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_grenade_discharger

Japanese innovation is often forgotten. It's more similar to a modern grenade launcher, though.

EmilCrane wrote:Anti tank mortar rounds do exist, but I've never heard of HESH mortar rounds (which is what augur rounds are)

Upping their strength might be the way to go, I like the idea of having mortars but can't realistically find a place for them in my lists

Rumbleguts wrote:Trying to take real world examples and apply them to the rules of 40k are generally a bad idea.

Just dual quoting to show that, while HESH mortar rounds don't exist know why couldn't they exist in 38k years...

Mortars definitely need to be a bit stronger, and have a bit more versatility (I kinda like the idea of illumination round that take away night fighting. One of those an 2 lascannons could be fun)

Xyrael wrote:

 edbradders wrote:
In real life mortars are one of the most un-maneuverable weapons going. They have to be dug-in to be fired accurately which can take a long time. They do have a higher rate of fire than artillery though (up to 20 rounds a minute for short periods of time). Therefore I don't think they should be assault weapons. I do think they should be more powerful though. Maybe S5 or S6 and able to fire at heavy 2 every 2 turns and heavy 1 all other turns and make them AP4. I think that would make them more true to life, for an appropriate points rise of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_grenade_discharger

Japanese innovation is often forgotten. It's more similar to a modern grenade launcher, though.

The British army, until recently, used a similar 50mm light mortar. They have since changed it to a 60mm light mortar but I was talking about the British 81mm medium mortar which needs more than 1 person to set up and fire (typically 3 people).

How about making the Mortar: Heavy 2 ?

I agree with making the mortars a bit stronger than they are. S5 sounds nice and sensible to me. But making them assault weapons is out of the question in my opinnion. They should remain heavy weapons. Heavy 2 might be ok. Not quite sure.

Rumbleguts wrote:
Trying to take real world examples and apply them to the rules of 40k are generally a bad idea.

Straight on the mark my friend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xyrael wrote:

 edbradders wrote:
In real life mortars are one of the most un-maneuverable weapons going. They have to be dug-in to be fired accurately which can take a long time. They do have a higher rate of fire than artillery though (up to 20 rounds a minute for short periods of time). Therefore I don't think they should be assault weapons. I do think they should be more powerful though. Maybe S5 or S6 and able to fire at heavy 2 every 2 turns and heavy 1 all other turns and make them AP4. I think that would make them more true to life, for an appropriate points rise of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_grenade_discharger

Japanese innovation is often forgotten. It's more similar to a modern grenade launcher, though.

I believe looted versions of that launcher used by Americans shattered many knee caps, as the americans believed that you fired it off the knee that way.

Anyway:

To make mortars ""better""

Range 6~36, S5 AP- Heavy 3 Blast, G&C the guards way

G&C the Guard's way:
(Guess and check)

A mortar shot always scatters the full 2D6", ignoring BS. If a hit is rolled, then add the Ballistic skill modifier, but the blast still scatters.

If a Blast lands favourably, all further blasts (from that mortar - not from others in the same or other squad) can be placed in exactly the same place, scattering only 1D6 but otherwise following normal rules for scattering. (not the rules above.)

Justifications:
Range:
Mortars are close support, anti-infantry weapons. They cannot shoot too close to themselves (the trajectory will not be possible) and they lose a massive amount of accuracy the more the shellt becomes a direct shot, as opposed to a parabolic lob - enough to say that the shell may not even land on the battlefield. 36" allows the mortar some reach, while limiting it from hurting everything everywhere.

S5, AP-
Mortars are anti-infantry weapons. They are high powered explosives, but are relatively poor and penetrating armour. To represnet this, I gave them a good enough strength to wound most units reliably, while allowing them protection from armour.

Heavy 3:
Mortars are notoriously fast-firing weapons. Since aiming with a mortar can be likened to a joke, one simply has to drop a shell in the mortar and cover his ears.

Guess and Check:
As stated above, it is very difficult to aim with a mortar. this is easily represented by the 2D6" scatter. That said, it is possible to see where the last shell landed - if this turned out to be a relatively good shot, a mortar team will simply load the next shot in and hope for the best - sometimes they'll hit on target, sometimes, they'll miss - since the mortar is locked in position, it has a reduced chance of scattering wildly, represented by the 1D6" scatter.

It may also be worth giving this form of mortar Ignores cover, as it lacks any capability to remove armour - removing a 5+ cover on a 6+ armour save Termagant is a big deal, killing roughtly 1.5 times more gants than without it. I'll leave this up to the public to decide.

Does this solve your problems, without making them too versatile to be reasonable?

 Mahtamori wrote:
The big question is, when dealing with weapons like this: if the game wasn't filled up with extreme amounts of power armour, would it be more balanced? In the end you'll run into a brick wall, are the guys in light armour worth killing and how much should it cost killing them and conversely if weapons like Mortars are balanced around shooting on 3+ would proliferation of Mortars not devalue the light armour guys?

I've not got an opinion on the matter myself, I don't even know the Mortar's stats, but I do know it's not meant to be balanced for use against Marines.

 marv335 wrote:

 McGibs wrote:
Giving mortars AT rounds seem pretty out-there. Hitting something as small as a tank is next to impossible with a high trajectory round like a mortar, especially with a non-explosive round.
I really like the idea of alternate rounds though, making them more of a support weapon that compliments other units.

For AT purposes, maybe something like an incendiary round (s4, ap5, ignores cover) that glances vehicles or inflicts crew shaken on 4+?.

Smoke giving the unit hit a 4+ cover save, but also subjecting it to night-fighting would make it a good duel purpose round (give cover to yourself as you move up, or blind your enemy when they need to shoot)

Anti-tank mortar rounds already exist.
So not all that out there...

Just adding to this, but look up the PIAT for inspiration on anti-tank granades. British, very hard to aim, but excessively effective when it hits.

Problem with conversion into 40K is that the top armour of real tanks aren't anywhere near as good as the side armour, which is what hitting the roof gives you in 40K.

PIAT is a shoulder fired spigot mortar, and not really comparable with the crew served mortars we're talking about here. It was fired in a direct trajectory more like a rocket launcher. You -could- lob a PIAT round like a traditional mortar, but sure as hell wouldn't hit a tank with it. They used them like that against buildings or bunkers sometimes when they had no actual mortars to use instead.

AT mortar rounds are either very modern guided smart-rounds (not something I'd expect to see with guard level equipment), or are really huge heavy mortar HE rounds that just flatten whatever they land on (not specifically what i'd call dedicated AT)

A PIAT is more like an RPG than a mortar.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A PIAT is more like an RPG than a mortar.

Except that it's a shoulder mounted spigot mortar, not a rocket propelled grenade.

Just because MOH made use of the PIAT as a rocket launcher, doesn't mean that it is a rocket launcher.

A PIAT would also be a mediocre anti-tank weapon in 47k.

Something along the lines of

RA 12", S6AP5 assault 2.

He meant it's fired like an RPG (shoulder fired, direct trajectory), not that it is a rocket.

 edbradders wrote:
In real life mortars are one of the most un-maneuverable weapons going. They have to be dug-in to be fired accurately which can take a long time. They do have a higher rate of fire than artillery though (up to 20 rounds a minute for short periods of time). Therefore I don't think they should be assault weapons. I do think they should be more powerful though. Maybe S5 or S6 and able to fire at heavy 2 every 2 turns and heavy 1 all other turns and make them AP4. I think that would make them more true to life, for an appropriate points rise of course.

Not true, American Infantry companies tote around 60mm mortars, which are fairly accurate when shot freestanding. They're obviously better when dug in, but they are highly mobile (although god have mercy on the poor 11C private carrying the damn thing). You could simulate this in the game by making it Assault 1 (full scatter) and Heavy 2 (subtract BS)

You also have 81 and 120mm mortars (in the US inventory), which are obviously less mobile (although the 120 is super mobile when towed behind a truck, as seen in Cavalry Troops)

They're mobile relative to full sized artillery, but for an infantry portable weapon they're pretty heavy. Mostly the backplate is what's a pain to move around.

Also the ammunition is another factor. Thats not exactly small either.

I thought the topic here was about the 40k mortar profile.

McGibs wrote:He meant it's fired like an RPG (shoulder fired, direct trajectory), not that it is a rocket.

You'd find that the PIAT, when fired properly Fired at an angled trajectory. It is nothing like an RPG or Bazooka and that similarity simply does not exist.

TheLionOfTheForest wrote:I thought the topic here was about the 40k mortar profile.

Let me talk about stuff.

You'd find that the PIAT, when fired properly Fired at an angled trajectory. It is nothing like an RPG or Bazooka and that similarity simply does not exist.

What are you on about?
PIAT: You point it at a target in range, and adjust for distance drop.




Bazooka. You point it at a target in range, and adjust for distance drop.


The PIAT doesn't have some magical high-trajectory arc that differentiates it from other grenade launching AT weapons, rocket or otherwise. It's different because it uses a spigot mortar instead of a rocket to deliver the grenade. Otherwise, it's employed in pretty much the same way. Get close to a tank, shoot it in the butt.

And yes, I -KNOW- it doesnt have a backblast, or a smoke trail, or electronic firing mechanism, like an RPG system. The mechanism is different, yes. The practical employment, is not. Aside from the fact that it kicks like a donkey, and you can fire it inside a building and not roast yourself, it's entirely similar to an RPG.

And yes, I know you can fire a PIAT like a traditional mortar, with the buttplate on the ground. This was only really used against structures, with HE rounds, not against vehicles, which is where this whole dumb discussion on the PIAT sarted.